I was made aware of this video via twitter (thanks Greg!) and thought it may be of interest. It’s a good discussion on telegraphing punches with some nice demonstrations.

I also thought this could lead to discussion on telegraphing generally? Some of my initial thoughts:

It is very important not to telegraph a punch when in a duel / consensual fight as we have a reaction gap and hence such a punch can be thwarted. It’s also important not to telegraph when pre-empting in self-protection; although deception and dialogue can be used hide preparation to strike i.e. dropping the hand to the side to set up the slap while asking the action trigger question. Such a hand motion is entirely in-keeping with the body language associated with asking a question and hence will not be see as a potentially combative motion.

However, I think that the notion of telegraphing is sometimes overemphasised in the chaos of close-range conflict where the range and pace make it highly unlikely a person will see and have time to effectively react to any punch. It can therefore be advantageous to “open” technique up a little to ensure greater impact i.e. give a hook a wider arc. However, we sometimes see concern about telegraphing overriding power generation in an environment where power is far more important than telegraphing (it’s that context thing again).

It’s very unlikely the technique will be spotted and thwarted anyway due to the close range and the fact they have rapid punches (several a second) coming in and hence have a lot to deal with.

From a fighting / duelling perspective, mirror work can be a great way to test if you are adding in unnecessary motion. As can using a partner to say “now” when they think you are about to punch; which can be good fighting and also useful for refining the technique in pre-emption practise. I’m sure you will have plenty of other telegraphing training methods to share which will be of value to all.

Good clip! What he uses here is a principle that fencers have known and used for centuries. He extends the arm in a straight line towards the target before moving any other part of the body.

Good observation! I can see the parallels there now that you point them out.

The big difference of course would be one is skewering with razor sharp piece of metal and the other is hitting with a blunt fist. What this means is that one method can be finish a fight with minimal bodyweight, but the other can’t.

In consensual fighting (where there is a gap to be closed), a jab were the hand moves first is ideal because it will close the gap, stun or distract the opponent, and open them up for whatever comes next. However, if there is no gap (i.e. in the middle of a self-protection situation that has degenerated into a fight) then not telegraphing is much less important than every blow having stopping power. In that case, it makes more sense to move the hand last.

Even though we are talking about tiny fractions of seconds, the body takes longer to get up to speed that the limb alone, and if the limb moves first it will hit before substantial mass has got behind the technique. The result is a weak or “pushy” punch. However, if we move the hips first and use the torque generated in the body to whip the lead hand out, at overall greater speed, and, more importantly, the body mass has really got going hence the impact will be far greater. However, such a technique at a distance when facing another trained fighter in a “match fight” could potentially be impropriate as they could see the hip movement and hence react.

You’ll notice that many pro-fighters “open up” their strikes when going in for the kill (because they want the additional power), but still keep them very tight when engaging in there back and forth and attempting to close the gap (because they want to get it and set things up). It basically comes down to what is best in the circumstances and what we are trying to achieve with any given punch.